Good Morning. It's #Brexit "break the law day" today.

So question (1): what does it mean? Is it serious?

And question (2) for the EU: "waddaya gonna do abaat it? Punk." 1/Thread

So in answer to Q1, it IS serious.

Serious enough for the UK's top government lawyer to resign in principle over the government plans. As me and @SebastianEPayne report here. But why SO serious? /2 https://www.ft.com/content/6d7594dc-e67d-4f21-a1be-9a2327ac6474

Because this is NOT "tidying up loose ends", its a flagrant move to unilaterally define a *mutually agreed* treaty (the Northern Ireland Protocol) in the event of a 'no deal'.

Officials call it a "safety net" but then, if it's so benign ,why did Jonathan Jones quit? /3

It's because its not benign. For example.

The Protocol says that the Joint Commitee will determine which goods going from GB to NI are "at risk" (and so must attract tarrifs)..but if NO agreement is reached, then the default is that ALL goods are at risk. /4

The UK government says it will put clauses (in the autumn Finance Bill) that will allow UK Ministers to define what is "at risk". You can see that that is *directly contradictory* to what the previous deal said /5

UK officials say this is just "clearing up inadvertent defaults" - which is bad joke.

This default is NOT "inadvertent". Indeed EU officials were drawing my attention to in January. It was/is intentional. To protect the all-ireland economy and Ireland place in single market./6

The deal is equally clear (and UK risk assessments said this at the time) that Export Summary Declarations would be required on goods going NI-GB. Ministers want to over-rule this in a 'no deal' too. Again *directly contradicting* the deal. /7

And on State Aid (see Article 10 of the Protocol) the UK has a duty to follow EU State Aid rules if they impact goods in Northern Ireland. Annex 5 in that sentence is all EU law on state aid - see Art 108 (3) TFEU on the duty to notify - which the UK will now constrain /8

You'll forgive the chewy details - but it's worth grasping why a man like Jonathan Jones resigned if it's all just 'bluster, negotiations' etc. It's clearly not.

The govt is saying "if we get a 'no deal', we'll interpret the Protocol unilaterally in this way" /9

Whether or not that's the actions of a "rogue state" it's certainly a roguish way to negotiate.

Lord Frost and @BorisJohnson are playing major hardball. Give us the deal we want, or we walk away on our own terms - and we've given ourselves the legal mechanism to do it. /10

It borders on the darkly comical, therefore when UK officials say that *until* that happens, the UK is determined to "negotiate in good faith" in the Joint Committee.

Good faith? After this? As the government menacingly weighs the legal cudgels in its palm? /11

But what DOES the EU do about it?

Well, they're in a spot.

The UK behaviour is plainly egregious and plainly destroys trust, but at the same time the EU does NOT want to walk away. It never does. /12

As one EU official said "we would not want to give them the satisfaction" of blowing up the talks and the EU walking away...which you could infer from this decision to break the law, is exactly what @BorisJohnson and @DavidGHFrost want (but they'll never say it) /13

So we're into the blame-game, with the EU having zero trust in the UK, and very little expectation of a deal - but determined that the "door will be open" and that if this is all just a 'bluff' for domestic consumption (think Prorogation debacle last year) let it play out /14

It is possible that the Commission could take the equivalent of an infringement procedure under the Withdrawal Agreement - a legal/technical way of registering outrage. But not the same as a walk out. /15

Instead, it looks more likely that this leads to the slow death of the process, since it's hard (see threads passim on trust) to see how you do a deal on a level playing field (legally underpinned mutual agreement on rules) with a govt that unilaterally re-writes them. /16

The EU is well aware that sitting tight (waiting for a Boris row-back, or to see if the Bill actually clears Third Reading) will have many Brexiters saying that Frost strategy is vindicated. That the EU is blinking. They prefer "adult in the room". /17

But the truth is also that the Protocol only really worked if there was a trade deal along side it - or at least, it's very hard to see how it works politically in the event of a 'no deal' with this government, and that poses a huge set of (familiar) Qs on the border./18

And recall, these Qs thrown up by #Brexit were never answered. This Protocol was one answer that @BorisJohnson signed up to - but now wants to re-write. @theresa_may had a 'backstop' instead of an answer. /19

And this is the real danger here. If we have a 'no deal' and the politics get out of hand, then can the (unilaterally re-written) Protocol hold? What will it mean for Ireland? For relations with US and EU?

Not too late. Everyone needs to take a (big) breath. ENDS